Abstract:Abstract Background Who benefits from the commercial biomedical research and development (R&D)? Patients-consumers and investors-shareholders have traditionally been viewed as two distinct groups with conflicting interests: shareholders seek maximum profits, patients - maximum clinical benefit. However, what happens when patients are the shareholders? With billions of dollars of public risk capital channeled into the drug development industry, analysing the complex financial architecture and the market for corporate control is essential for understanding industry’s characteristics, such as pricing strategies or R&D priorities. Results Adding investments by governmentally-mandated retirement schemes, central and promotional banks, and sovereign wealth funds to tax-derived governmental financing shows that the majority of biomedical R&D funding is public in origin. Despite this, even in the high-income countries patients can be denied access to effective treatments due to their high cost. Since these costs are set by the drug development firms that are owned in substantial part by the retirement accounts of said patients, the complex financial architecture of biomedical R&D may be inconsistent with the objectives of the ultimate beneficiaries. Conclusions The divergence in economic and public health performance of the drug development industry is resultant from its financial underwriting by enormously expanded pension schemes, governmentally mandated to represent the interests of “captive” beneficiaries, as well as similar policymaker-designed funding flows, whose standards of transparency, accountability and representation are substantially lower than that of governments themselves. Strengthening those elements of institutional design and thus ensuring active responsible shareholding in the interest of the patients-savers is an under-utilised, but potentially high-impact opportunity for advancing public health.

Hmrc Closes Loophole That Allowed Tax Relief on Funding Medical Research

No Accounting for Tax Avoidance

Drug Industry Broke Promises on Medical Research, Say Experts

WHO Refers $29m Oxford Research Project to GMC for Misconduct

Pension and state funds dominating biomedical R&D investment: fiduciary duty and public health

NICE is Too Generous in Approving Drugs, Analysis Says.

New Cancer Drugs Fund is Flawed Without NICE Reform, Says Roche

Investment Managers Back Greater Transparency of Clinical Trials

Cairn Energy: when retroactive taxation not justified by prevention of tax avoidance is unfair and inequitable

Government launches scheme to deliver five “breakthrough technologies” a year

New legal aid fund for sleuths

England’s Health Department Avoids Breaching Budget on “Technicality”

Boosting innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises through tax incentives: lessons from the UK

Who generated the loopholes? A case study of corporate tax advisors’ regulatory capture over anti-tax avoidance legislation in Finland

Lower Taxes, Smarter Crowd? The Impact of Tax Incentives on Equity Crowdfunding

Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development

Speeding Up Access to New Drugs Threatens Evidence Based Medicine, Says Health Economist

Case Law Trends: New Targeted Interest Deduction Limitation Rules Post Lexel

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (in Administration) Court of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 347

Financial Intermediation and the Funding of Biomedical Innovation: A Review

A call for improved transparency in financial aspects of clinical trials: a case study of the CREATE-X trial in the New England Journal of Medicine